tiltbillings wrote:While the old kamma and conditioning plays itself out

retrofuturist wrote:Disagree, but already done to death. I believe our point of difference lies in different understandings of the English word "conditioning" and the Pali word "sankhara" as they pertain to experience.

tiltbillings wrote:I have no idea what your position on this is.

Well, I have tried to relate it to you using sutta terminology, which is my chosen frame of reference.

However, since that has failed, perhaps pages 44-45 of A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma might give you some idea as to how, within the Mahavihara Theravada tradition, consciousness might "function" (to use your terminology) in an unconditioned/unformed sense (i.e. without sankhara as its necessary foundation, i.e. without itself being sankhata, formed), without this notion of "old kamma and conditioning play[ing] itself out".

"The remaining three types of consciousness among the ahetukas are not kammic results. They belong to the category called kiriya, rendered here as "functional" to indicate that they perform tasks which do not have any kammic potency. Such type consciousness are neither causal kamma nor the result of kamma. Within this category, three types of consciousness are rootless.

To be clear, I'm not advocating this tract of commentarial Abhidhamma.... merely presenting it to you as an opportunity for you to see how vinnana might "function" after the cessation of sankhara (formations), without the need for anything to be "obliterated" or "kill[ed] off".

retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might "function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation

I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness.

One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world. Not clinging, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’

Cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 04:

What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared consciousness, abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. An arahant's experience of the cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of the cessation of name-and-form.

And Nibbāna Sermon 06:

The more one sees preparations (saṅkhāras) as preparations, ignorance is dispelled, and the more one dispels ignorance, the preparations lose their significance as preparations. Then one sees the nature of preparations with wisdom as signless, desireless, and void. So much so that, in effect, preparations cease to be preparations.... The relation of saṅkhāras to ignorance is somewhat similar to the relation a drama has to its back-stage preparations. It seems, then, that from the standpoint of Dhamma the entire saṃsāra is a product of specifically prepared intentions, even like the drama with its back-stage preparations....

The phrase saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ (e.g. M III 299), 'prepared and dependently arisen', suggests that the prepared nature is also due to that contact. What may be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa (S III 58), 'specifically prepared consciousness', is that sort of consciousness which gets attached to name-and-form. When one sees a film show, one interprets a scene appearing on the screen according to one's likes and dislikes. It becomes a thing of experience for him. Similarly, by imagining a self in name-and-form, consciousness gets attached to it. It is such a consciousness, which is established on name-and-form, that can be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. Then could there be also a consciousness which does not reflect a name-and-form? Yes, there could be. That is what is known as anidassana viññāṇa, or 'non-manifestative consciousness'.

When that consciousness is unestablished, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’

As for the qualm that this last passage refers to the death of an arahant, the phrase: "Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here,'" is the standard paricope referring to the time of awakening, i.e. a statement of the attainment of arahant fruition (e.g. DN 15, MN 105, etc.), and not the time of death of an arahant.

The above passages referring to the cognition of an arahant are succinctly presented in AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower.

Ven. Ñāṇananda considered the Kāḷakārāma Sutta important enough to write a text on it.

All the best,

Geoff

Last edited by Nyana on Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

tiltbillings wrote:While the old kamma and conditioning plays itself out

retrofuturist wrote:Disagree, but already done to death. I believe our point of difference lies in different understandings of the English word "conditioning" and the Pali word "sankhara" as they pertain to experience.

tiltbillings wrote:I have no idea what your position on this is.

Well, I have tried to relate it to you using sutta terminology, which is my chosen frame of reference.

And as for using the suttas, which is my preference, apparently you do not agree with my understanding, but interestingly, you really have not given a reasoned counter argument to the points I raised other than saying they are not how you understand things.

As for the A Comprehensive Manual Of Abhidhamma, I'll take the suttas.

And for all of this, there are other things to do.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might "function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation

I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

Interestingly, if there were no functioning of the khandhas, there would be no "seen in the seen"; there would be no seen at all, or any of it, which is all the functioning of the khandhas. It is just that the arahant's insight has freed her from indentifying, from establishing herself in terms of the khandhas. Ven Nanananda is not saying anything I have not said, and has not said anything in this missive with which I disagree. (Though I would not want get entangled with the appatiṭṭha viññāṇa business.)

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

tiltbillings wrote:Interestingly, if there were no functioning of the khandhas, there would be no "seen in the seen"; there would be no seen at all, or any of it, which is all the functioning of the khandhas. It is just that the arahant's insight has freed her from indentifying, from establishing herself in terms of the khandhas.

Well, I'd suggest that this amounts to measuring and classifying the arahant in terms of the aggregates. Also, the aggregate scheme isn't necessary to account for awakened experience. And as I've previously mentioned, the suttas do not use the aggregate classification when referring to the Buddha or an arahant. They use the faculties classification. The suttas never equate the aggregates with the sense spheres or the faculties. Given the definition of the fabrications aggregate as volitional intention pertaining to the six objects (e.g. SN 22.56 Upādānaparivatta Sutta), there may be good reason for this. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world.

tiltbillings wrote:Interestingly, if there were no functioning of the khandhas, there would be no "seen in the seen"; there would be no seen at all, or any of it, which is all the functioning of the khandhas. It is just that the arahant's insight has freed her from identifying, from establishing herself in terms of the khandhas.

Well, I'd suggest that this amounts to measuring and classifying the arahant in terms of the aggregates.

I'd suggest that it doesn't. The only way that an individual would be measured and classified in terms of the khandhas is if they identify and establish themselves with them. Here someone seems to be in agreement with what I have said: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=240#p126153

"If one stays obsessed with form, that's what one is measured (limited) by." - SN 22.53. The arahant is not obsessed by the khandhas, thusly is not measured by them, but the living arahant sees, hears, cognizes, which are all functions of the khandhas. Why would it be otherwise?

This is what I've been saying -- the sutta which defines saupādisesa nibbānadhātu refers to the faculties, not the aggregates. The suttas in the Saṃyuttanikāya which describe the Buddha's experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc., refer to the faculties, not the aggregates. I'm not interested in hanging my hat on any thesis based on the omission of the aggregate scheme in these contexts, but it's worth noting.

This is what I've been saying -- the sutta which defines saupādisesa nibbānadhātu refers to the faculties, not the aggregates. The suttas in the Saṃyuttanikāya which describe the Buddha's experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, etc., refer to the faculties, not the aggregates. I'm not interested in hanging my hat on any thesis based on the omission of the aggregate scheme in these contexts, but it's worth noting.

All the best,

Geoff

Alrighty then.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

retrofuturist wrote:A couple of follow up questions, if you'll oblige...

Does this mean you only believe an arahant transcends dukkha (the final nidana) through "death"?

If so, does this mean either that an arahant does not experience nibbana, or that nibbana and dukkha are either simultaneously present, or alternating?

Hi retro

At risk of sounding like a nit-picker, I don't believe "dukkha" is a nidana per se. A nidana is a relationship described by one of the iddapaccayata formula. Birth and dukkha form one nidana.

Based on what the AN 9s have to say in its listing of Nibbana-Here-&-Now variants, it seems pretty clear that when an Arahant soaks in a Jhana or Nirodha Sammapatti, he/she is personally experiencing Nibbana. This leads me to think that outside of these 9 specifically named experiences, it is not Nibbana.

On the other hand, the objection could be raised that if an Arahant's normal moments are not-Nibbanic, would that not mean the Arahant is still generating tanha which leads to dukkha? Clearly, I think that would be impossible, given my belief that the nidana between vedana and tanha are forever destroyed in an Arahant. The problem is of course the nidana between tanha and upadana. Ven Nanananda posits the upadana in sa-upadisesa nibbana to be clinging, and I think it is a possibility that he could be right and this upadana is in relation to the 5 material indriyas. Iddapaccayata does allow the tanha-upadana nidana to unravel over time, and this could explain why an Arahant in the kāmaloka still makes contact with the kāmā (ie due to the persistance of kāmupadana). Some of the experiences borne of contact with kāmā will be dukkha, to the extent that they are unpleasant kayika vedana. But we do know that because an Arahant has also destroyed the Anusayas, this means that all the cetasika vedanas that trigger the Anusayas are also gone. But, the other 3 clingings described in the DO pericopes are certainly gone, thereby rendering any form of identification by an Arahant with his/her khandhas (experiences of those kāmā) impossible.

Dukkha, in the normal DO sense, includes both the kayika and the cetasika vedanas. The persistance of an Arahant's experience of kayika vedana is inevitable (except in the Jhanas) given his/her 5 indriyas, but his/her transcendance of the cetasika vedanas have removed a huge, huge chunk of dukkha.

Sylvester wrote:Based on what the AN 9s have to say in its listing of Nibbana-Here-&-Now variants, it seems pretty clear that when an Arahant soaks in a Jhana or Nirodha Sammapatti, he/she is personally experiencing Nibbana. This leads me to think that outside of these 9 specifically named experiences, it is not Nibbana.

And this raises an interesting question. Is nibbana a meditative experience or set of meditative experiences, or are there meditative experiences that might be associated with the attainment of nibbana, but nibbana itself is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion, and the arahant as she moves through the world no longer perceives in terms of greed, hatred, and delusion.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

When that consciousness is unestablished, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’

As for the qualm that this last passage refers to the death of an arahant, the phrase: "Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here,'" is the standard paricope referring to the time of awakening, i.e. a statement of the attainment of arahant fruition (e.g. DN 15, MN 105, etc.), and not the time of death of an arahant.

Oh Geoff, where does SN 22.53 refer to "appatiṭṭha viññāṇa"?

If you select one little passage from SN 22.53, it does nothing but to obfuscate the context. How about the preceding passage to give this fulsome context -

Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust, the basis is cut off : there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. If he has abandoned lust for the feeling element ... for the perception element ... for the volitional fomations element ... for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust, the basis is cut off : there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands .....

Again, the simple verb context of whether consciousness is established or not becomes mysteriously reified into an "unestablished consciousness".

Take a look at SN 12.39 -

Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards : this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. Where there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is descent of name and form ... (continue per the rest of DO sequence).....

But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no descent of name and form... (continue per the rest of DO sequence)

I'm still waiting to see some convincing evidence of this unicorn called the "unestablished consciousness", when all I can see are suttas simply referring to "consciousness not being established" as being nothing more than the condition for the cessation of the descent of name and form. Classical DO - why improve on it by introducing this unicorn?

Sylvester wrote:Based on what the AN 9s have to say in its listing of Nibbana-Here-&-Now variants, it seems pretty clear that when an Arahant soaks in a Jhana or Nirodha Sammapatti, he/she is personally experiencing Nibbana. This leads me to think that outside of these 9 specifically named experiences, it is not Nibbana.

And this raises an interesting question. Is nibbana a meditative experience or set of meditative experiences, or are there meditative experiences that might be associated with the attainment of nibbana, but nibbana itself is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion, and the arahant as she moves through the world no longer perceives in terms of greed, hatred, and delusion.

Hi tilt.

I hesitate to answer definitely.

I would certainly agree with your statement that the kammas and mula-kammas of greed, hatred and delusion are extinguished in an Arahant. BUT, a putthujana practising sila could possibly suppress greed and hatred temporarily and a well-instructed putthujana could possibly recollect on DO and thereby suppress illusions about his khandhas at that time (per MN 152). In these cases, something is shared with the Arahant's no-greed, no-hatred and no-delusion. Yet, I've not seen these putthujana experiences being described as Nibbanic.

If one goes even deeper than the above 3 mula-kamma, we come to the Anusayas. It is clear that in the Arahants, the Anusayas are also totally gone. But MN 44 does suggest that the pleasures of 1st Jhana cannot trigger raga and raganusaya, which makes AN 9s' characterisation of 1st Jhana as "Nibbana-Here-&-Now-With-a-Sequel" understandable. Likewise for the equanimity of 4th Jhana not triggering avijjanusaya. So, Nibbanic experiences are somewhat accessible to putthujanas, unless one argues that the putthujanas' Jhanas are not in the same class as MN 117's Jhanas, or reject altogether the Commentarial notion that putthujanas can attain Jhanas and restrict Jhanas only to the "8 Pairs".

I wish I have something to say about the Asavas, but that's all I can muster.

I have no time for you bud. Is that not clear? I have zero interest in discussing anything else with you. Your views on virtually every subject are so far out there that they don't even remotely resemble the Buddhadhamma. To point out and clarify each of your interpretive errors in this thread alone would take far more time and effort than I'm willing to invest. You're entirely free to invent your own religion and call it whatever you like, but I'm not interested.

There's a reason why I don't visit Sujato's blog or Brahmavamso's forum or Daniel Ingram's forum: I have no interest in what these people are presenting as "dhamma."

Sylvester wrote:You certainly had loads of time to assail me with your PM yesterday...

A PM which was an exact copy of this post, with the reason for sending it: in case the post was deleted by the mods due to my choice of language.

At any rate, you may be a fine lawyer but the dhamma isn't an adversarial system. I'm not interested in your version of sutta interpretation, just as I'm not interested in Sujato's version or Brahmavamso's version or Daniel Ingram's version. It's nothing personal, I'm simply not interested.

In the words of Woody (Toy Story), please remember to play nice!Thanks

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

beeblebrox wrote:The consciousness continues to persist because of the specific sankharas that gave rise to it, were already arisen. One can't time-travel to the past to undo these... but he can see them for what they are, disidentify with them, and then let them go to their complete end at parinibbana.

I'm not sure if this was just a bit of loose language or not, but be careful not to slip into the fallacy of Sati the Fisherman's Son.

Metta,Retro.

Yes, that wasn't my intention... just that once the consciousness is arisen (or khandhas), it'll to go to end in due time, after the cessation of the sankharas which gave rise to it, not due to some unrelated, new sankharas in the future ceasing, or being abandoned. I'm not sure if this is a correct way of viewing the D.O. (and what Sylvester meant), but seems to make sense to me, sorta.

tiltbillings wrote:Is nibbana a meditative experience or set of meditative experiences

Of course not.

tiltbillings wrote:or are there meditative experiences that might be associated with the attainment of nibbana, but nibbana itself is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion, and the arahant as she moves through the world no longer perceives in terms of greed, hatred, and delusion.

beeblebrox wrote:Yes, that wasn't my intention... just that once the consciousness is arisen (or khandhas), it'll to go to end in due time, after the cessation of the sankharas which gave rise to it, not due to some unrelated, new sankharas in the future ceasing, or being abandoned.

SN 12.61 Assutavantu Sutta: "But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another."

When the underlying tendencies and outflows have been eliminated upon awakening there is gnosis of elimination (khayeñāṇa). After this there are no underlying tendencies associated with an arahant's mind-stream.